# Trump voters: explain yourselves **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 24, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699 "2016-09-24T03:24:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/221 "2016-09-28T22:46:00Z")
> [@Lisaren](#): > > Incorrect. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I do not believe Trump or Hillary are fit to be president for different reasons and refuse to support either. I just can not understand why anyone would think you should get a reply after calling someone an idiot. All it shows me is the person asking the question is totally insincere and really just wants to hear from the echo chamber. Or they could be calling them out, asking them to disprove the notion. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/222 "2016-09-29T00:17:12Z")
> [@Lisaren](#): > > Incorrect. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I do not believe Trump or Hillary are fit to be president for different reasons and refuse to support either. I just can not understand why anyone would think you should get a reply after calling someone an idiot. All it shows me is the person asking the question is totally insincere and really just wants to hear from the echo chamber. And yet you came in to defend him and attack everyone who doesn’t support him. No, the fact that 40% of the population is either block stupid or racist as fuck is not some weird revelation. And we have a couple Trump supporters in here, so you didn’t even get that right. Of course the only reason we want them in here is to tell them they are wrong. We actually care about this country, unlike you who are voting for someone you know can’t win, meaning your vote will accomplish nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/223 "2016-09-29T01:09:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Thank you, that was kind of the point I was trying to make this morning, but it was just too early for such things… > > The other point that Bricker will not acknowledge is that in his examples, the republican gets a “mostly false”, and the democrat gets a “false”, for what he feels is the same statement. Now, i could have sworn that bricker was claiming that politifact was biased against republicans, but it appears as though he is making the opposite case. No. For what I hope is the last time: The Democrat got a “False,” for the specific claim that no committee meetings were attended. The Republican-minded AFF got a “Mostly False,” for the claim that InsideGov rated the guy ineffective, a rating Politifact felt was based on insufficient metrics. Two different things, and I would not have mentioned it. EXCEPT that during the process of giving the Democrat “False,” for his SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENT, they also mentioned that they weren’t going to rate the more general “ineffective” claim, as it was too subjective. Please address those two disparate treatments of that issue. InsideGov rated the congressman ineffective. Is that statement true? False? Mostly false? Or too subjective? > [@](#): > > Some people juggle geese. Hand to God? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/224 "2016-09-29T01:20:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > You phrase it entirely as though the ball is in the defender’s court; it’s impossible, not to find a situation where two examples are agreed upon, but that defenders will agree are acceptably accurate (and I disagree with your characterisation of what’s being compared, anyway). Surely disagreement on such things is not limited solely to defensive disagreement? Huh? Look, on matters like this, I have learned that if my interlocutors are willing to deny a clear example of bias between two Granny Smith apples like this, there’s zero value in exploring oranges and how they might be compared to the apples. > [@](#): > > But it isn’t a reason for _you,_ personally, not to do it, for the sake of your own personal satisfaction. It’s a shame purely for my own benefit that you don’t have stats you think would convince others, but ok. In your view, Politifact applies two different standards; alright. What statistics did you use to convince\* you\*, personally, of that? My admission of possible confirmation bias is above, and the answer to this question is: not any accumulation of statistics, but a personal recollection of finding most of Politifact’s decisions acceptably defensible on their own, but observing that the set in total is standards stricter against conservative speakers and the decision to fact-check specific statements made against conservatives more often. > [@](#): > > I’m assuming you’re asking for Politifact’s opinion on these, rather than mine? So far as I can tell, Politifact seem to add shades like “Mostly” true or false to their judgements, so it’s not an either or. As I was writing this, I was about to say that we could just add that into your question and I’d agree it was a good representation of Politifact’s views, but on thinking about it I’m not sure that those shades don’t mean something for the “verifiably” part, as well. “Mostly” leaves some room for not just a modicum of truth/falsehood, but uncertainty, as well. Yes, but even then, if the sieve produces “Mostly,” as an answer in one case, it should reliably produce “Mostly,” in a near-identical case. Here, the question is about the claim that InsideGov rated a congressman among the most ineffective. Talk about that claim. I accept any answer to it, because I agree it’s laden with a lack of rigor. BUT I cannot see how it can produce two different answers. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/225 "2016-09-29T01:32:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > For what I hope is the last time: > > The Democrat got a “False,” for the specific claim that no committee meetings were attended. The Republican-minded AFF got a “Mostly False,” for the claim that InsideGov rated the guy ineffective, a rating Politifact felt was based on insufficient metrics. > > Two different things, and I would not have mentioned it. EXCEPT that during the process of giving the Democrat “False,” for his SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENT, they also mentioned that they weren’t going to rate the more general “ineffective” claim, as it was too subjective. > > Please address those two disparate treatments of that issue. > > InsideGov rated the congressman ineffective. Is that statement true? False? Mostly false? Or too subjective? > > Hand to God? So was the mostly false statement that he was “named” the most ineffective congressman? And the “not rate-able” statement that he WAS the most ineffective congressman? Because one is did the metrics used by the group confirm that he is totally ineffective, and the other is was he the least effective person. It seems to me to question of how the statement is/was parsed/presented. Were both within the same time frame? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/226 "2016-09-29T01:55:05Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Have we done this? > > I can’t, for the life of me, understand why someone would want Trump as president. > > The man is a dangerous, childish buffoon. My cite? Pretty much everything he’s ever said. > > I really don’t like the Clintons, either. But, unfortunately, Hillary is the only adult in the room. > [@Lisaren](#): > > Why in the hell would a real Trump supporter even talk to you after being called an imbecile for considering a vote for Trump? Even if you can find one on this board, they will just let you rant on. No matter what any Trump supporter says, the reply will be, but he is an orange buffoon and you are an idiot. If your mind is so closed that you think it is even on to call 40% of the electorate idiots, you don’t deserve a reply. Is this directed at me as the OP? I don’t think I’ve used the term imbecile in my posts, but if you self-identify–good for your self awareness. I could be wrong, much like [Trump stating he never said not paying federal taxes was smart right after the debate.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN1E5ok8Wsw) One more lie, but it’s like a grain of sand on the beach at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/227 "2016-09-29T01:59:52Z")
Reach out…and feel the Johnson. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/228 "2016-09-29T02:05:10Z")
> [@Lisaren](#): > > Incorrect. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I do not believe Trump or Hillary are fit to be president for different reasons and refuse to support either. Also known as “virtue signalling”. You are going to vote for someone (a rather crazy someone) who has no chance of winning as a symbolic gesture to show your moral purity, while increasing the chance a neofascist incompetent will take power and plunge the nation and the world into disaster. But hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority when Trump bombs Mexico City, rolls back civil rights and collapses the world economy. All those dead and suffering people are a small price to pay in return for stroking your ego, right? People who “vote their conscience” as a rule don’t have one. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/229 "2016-09-29T02:11:59Z")
> [@Ukulele\_Ike](#): > > Reach out…and feel the Johnson. I bet the Donald wants Ivanka to feel his johnson. Low blow [heh!], I know. But he’s really creepy when it comes to women, including his daughters. Didn’t he describe one of his daughters by air-cupping and saying she really has “Great boobs?” Tremendous boobs! The best ever! I make children with really successful boobs better than anyone! That’s what I’m hearing! Their boobs are as big as my hands! And, just tremendous! That’s what I’m hearing. People are just saying, ya know. [repeat a few times so people don’t think you’re on coke] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/230 "2016-09-29T02:27:57Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I bet the Donald wants Ivanka to feel his johnson… Perhaps better to discreetly ignore friend **Uke** ’s fall from grace. Maybe “flung himself” more than “fell”… ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/231 "2016-09-29T02:50:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps better to discreetly ignore friend **Uke** ’s fall from grace. Maybe “flung himself” more than “fell”… What did I miss? Not sure what to make of this comment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/232 "2016-09-29T03:14:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > So was the mostly false statement that he was “named” the most ineffective congressman? Yes. > [@](#): > > And the “not rate-able” statement that he WAS the most ineffective congressman? No. It was ALSO that he was named the most ineffective congressman. Both of these were previously linked, but: [Here is Politifact on AFF’s ad:](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/sep/09/american-future-fund/ad-attacking-patrick-murphy-among-least-effective-/) > [@](#): > > In the ad, American Future Fund says, “Patrick Murphy was named one of America’s least effective congressmen.” > . > . > . > The main problem with this ranking is it’s based on a single measure: the percentage of bills sponsored by each member over their time in office that went on to pass committee. That’s not a sufficient way to rate the effectiveness of a member of Congress. > . > . > . > The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. OK? Now here’s [the discussion of Grayson’s more specific claim:](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/18/alan-grayson/grayson-says-murphy-hasnt-passed-single-bill-out-c/) > [@](#): > > Grayson cited an InsideGov article as evidence for Murphy’s lack of action, but we found two problems with that evidence. > [@](#): > > We’re not going to rate Murphy’s effectiveness as a legislator, because that’s a subjective measure. We’ve also noted time and again that passing bills is not the only way to determine a lawmaker’s effectiveness. There’s simply more to the job, such as writing language that gets included in other bills, proposing amendments, being a co-sponsor, holding hearings or negotiating with other legislators, as well as constituent services. The SPECIFIC claim that Grayson made earns (correctly) a False rating: > [@](#): > > Grayson said Murphy “hasn’t passed a single bill out of committee.” That was a false statement. No argument there. But the statement that they wouldn’t rate the more general “effectiveness as a legislator” statement is problematic for you, because they did exactly that when rating the AFF’s statement “Mostly False.” AGAIN – either approach is perfectly defensible. It’s when you lay them next to each other that the problem becomes clear. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/233 "2016-09-29T03:24:30Z")
Someone made a good point: People don’t necessarily vote for a presidential candidate because they think he or she is good. They may think that he or she is bad, but that\* America needs to have something bad happen to it, \*for its own eventual good. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/234 "2016-09-29T03:40:27Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Someone made a good point: People don’t necessarily vote for a presidential candidate because they think he or she is good. They may think that he or she is bad, but that\* America needs to have something bad happen to it, \*for its own eventual good. I saw that post. My first thought was: That’s right. Masochists vote too. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/235 "2016-09-29T03:51:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the statement that they wouldn’t rate the more general “effectiveness as a legislator” statement is problematic for you, because they did exactly that when rating the AFF’s statement “Mostly False.” Mostly false is defined by Politifact as a " statement [that] contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." The fact that the InsideGov rankings are flawed is a “fact that would give a different impression.” Therefore, the Mostly False rating is appropriate. This doesn’t mean that Murphy is, necessarily, an effective member of congress. In fact, the Mostly False rating would still be appropriate even if Politifact feels that he _was_ ineffective. Because the AFF’s neither presents their statement as subjective opinion nor bases it in rigorous analysis, but instead cites a rating based on unreliable and discredited methodology, the statement would be “mostly false” statement _even if it happened to coincidentally be true_. Stopped clock, twice a day, etc. etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/236 "2016-09-29T04:07:52Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > Mostly false is defined by Politifact as a " statement [that] contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." > > The fact that the InsideGov rankings are flawed is a “fact that would give a different impression.” > > Therefore, the Mostly False rating is appropriate. > > This doesn’t mean that Murphy is, necessarily, an effective member of congress. In fact, the Mostly False rating would still be appropriate even if Politifact feels that he _was_ ineffective. Because the AFF’s neither presents their statement as subjective opinion nor bases it in rigorous analysis, but instead cites a rating based on unreliable and discredited methodology, the statement would be “mostly false” statement _even if it happened to coincidentally be true_. Stopped clock, twice a day, etc. etc. OK. And then what about the earlier claim that rating effectiveness is too subjective? See, for what I again hope is the last time: I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH EITHER STATEMENT ON ITS OWN. I am saying that both, together, show evidence of different methods of analysis. Any future posters responding to this discussion: please don’t defend only one analysis, or attack only one analysis. I am showing that both, together, indicate a differing approach, and you cannot refute that by only looking at one. Whatever you say about one statement, I agree with, ok? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/237 "2016-09-29T05:23:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > And then what about the earlier claim that rating effectiveness is too subjective? There is no inconsistency between “this shallow rating method is so shallow it’s obviously false” and “this complicated rating method is so subjective that we cannot evaluate it.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/238 "2016-09-29T06:25:48Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > There is no inconsistency between “this shallow rating method is so shallow it’s obviously false” and “this complicated rating method is so subjective that we cannot evaluate it.” Yes, there is. It’s the same method. How can it result in “We c an’t evaluate it,” and simultaneously, “Yes, we can, and it’s mostly false?” Seriously, this thread is about Trump voters and their (presumable) unwillingness to admit even the most obvious flaw in their candidate. And in the middle of THAT discussion, you are perfectly comfortable saying what you just said? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/239 "2016-09-29T06:59:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, there is. It’s the same method. How can it result in “We c an’t evaluate it,” and simultaneously, “Yes, we can, and it’s mostly false?” No, it’s not–they are saying that the _InsideGov method_ is too simple to be true, but an _actual, valid_ measure of effectiveness is too subjective to be proven. By conflating PolitiFact’s evaluation of InsideGov’s methodology and PolitiFact’s (lack of) evaluation of _actual_ political effectiveness, you misrepresent both the text of the article and the substance of my argument. The article on Grayson’s statement says Politifact will not rate Murphy’s effectiveness. It then immediately proceeds to dismantle the methodology behind InsideGov’s ranking. They won’t tell you how to judge a congressperson’s effectiveness, but they will tell you how **not** to do it, and that’s with InsideGov’s method. > [@](#): > > We’ve also noted time and again that passing bills is not the only way to determine a lawmaker’s effectiveness. Then, when rating Murphy’s statement, they do not comment on whether Grayson is actually an effective politician. Rather, they base their mostly-false rating on the paper-thin pretension upon which Murphy rests his judgment (a point which, I’ll add, you conceded a few posts ago but seem to have already forgotten) > [@](#): > > The main problem with this ranking is it’s based on a single measure: the percentage of bills sponsored by each member over their time in office that went on to pass committee. That’s not a sufficient way to rate the effectiveness of a member of Congress. These two articles are entirely consistent. There is no contradiction between the reasoning in the two articles, which both dismiss a juvenile ranking method as inaccurate while withholding judgment on a better solution. And there is no contradiction between their unwillingness to rank politicians themselves and their willingness to excoriate InsideGov’s feeble attempt at the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/240 "2016-09-29T07:22:55Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > No, it’s not–they are saying that the _InsideGov method_ is too simple to be true, but an _actual, valid_ measure of effectiveness is too subjective to be proven. By conflating PolitiFact’s evaluation of InsideGov’s methodology and PolitiFact’s (lack of) evaluation of _actual_ political effectiveness, you misrepresent both the text of the article and the substance of my argument. > > The article on Grayson’s statement says Politifact will not rate Murphy’s effectiveness. It then immediately proceeds to dismantle the methodology behind InsideGov’s ranking. They won’t tell you how to judge a congressperson’s effectiveness, but they will tell you how **not** to do it, and that’s with InsideGov’s method. > > Then, when rating Murphy’s statement, they do not comment on whether Grayson is actually an effective politician. Rather, they base their mostly-false rating on the paper-thin pretension upon which Murphy rests his judgment (a point which, I’ll add, you conceded a few posts ago but seem to have already forgotten) > > These two articles are entirely consistent. There is no contradiction between the reasoning in the two articles, which both dismiss a juvenile ranking method as inaccurate while withholding judgment on a better solution. And there is no contradiction between their unwillingness to rank politicians themselves and their willingness to excoriate InsideGov’s feeble attempt at the same. I give you credit for a brilliant effort at rehabilitating Politifact. But I’m afraid I still don’t agree. You have chosen to read each of their statements in the best possible light… you emphasize the areas in which you can find common points between the two. But you never answer the main point. “Politifact will not rate Murphy’s effectiveness,” according to you, is independent of Politifact’s judgement about InsideGov’s usefulness as a source. They won’t rate his effectiveness, but it’s mostly false for someone else to claim that InsideGov said that he was ineffective? Here’s a test of your theory. Suppose Politifact had said, “Politifact will rate Murphy’s effectiveness stronger than InsideGov did, and therefore rate the InsideGov statement Mostly False.” That, by you, is consistent. Yes? Now suppose that Politifact said, “While InsideGov’s methods are limited to one metric, it’s undeniable that by that metric, their rating is accurate, so we rate it Mostly True.” Would that also be consistent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699.md?page=13)